Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site unc.UUCP Path: utzoo!decvax!mcnc!unc!fsks From: fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) Newsgroups: net.med,net.women Subject: Re: Breast Cancer Treatment. Message-ID: <1@unc.UUCP> Date: Sun, 21-Jul-85 15:39:44 EDT Article-I.D.: unc.1 Posted: Sun Jul 21 15:39:44 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 22-Jul-85 15:10:43 EDT References: <1765@aecom.UUCP> <602@unc.UUCP> Reply-To: fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) Distribution: na Organization: CS Dept., U. of N. Carolina at Chapel Hill Lines: 24 Xref: pepe net.med:650 net.women:3149 Summary: In article <602@unc.UUCP> oliver@unc.UUCP (Bill Oliver) writes: >>> I suspect that younger, healthier women would tend to opt >>>for more cosmetically pleasing surgery and would bias the population. >In article seifert@hammer.UUCP (Snoopy) writes: >> "cosmetically pleasing" ? This is truely warped. >>Someone objects to having entire, functional parts of their body >>whacked off, when a much less radical option is available, >>and you accuse them of only being worried about cosmetics? >>I for one am grossly offended by this attitude. In article oliver@unc.UUCP (Bill Oliver) writes: > This is not a question of functionality. The women are no more >concerned about losing one half of their potential for lactation >than a woman contemplating a cholecystectomy is concerned about >a decrease in her ability to store bile. You are forgetting that radical masectomy ALSO removes a great deal of muscle tissue underneath the breast. Women who receive this treatment lose a great deal of strength and functionality in the respective arm. Furthermore, the woman's weight is no longer balanced across her spine. This can eventually lead to lower back pain. Frank Silbermann